rest upon merit and the unbidden consent of its promoters. If a member's talent and services are worth to the institution five thousand dollars a year, pay him five thousand a year; if five hundred dollars a year, pay him five hundred dollars a year. Otherwise talent will seek elsewhere for a proper remuneration for its efforts. Let not the institution seek to hedge itself in by special privileges and laws. The rights of man demand equality for all; indeed the truly brave and noble ask simply for justice, not for advantage of a fellow citizen in the struggle for bread. د, The proposition "To secure for both sexes equal pay for equal work is sound to the core. To impose less favorable conditions upon feeble woman than upon robust man is the greatest refinement of barbaric cruelty. Humanity blushes at so great a wrong; yet the world in all ages has been guilty, is guilty, of the outrage. Society as constructed pampers man, bestows upon him the fat of the land, licenses his will to go unbridled, and smiles with complacency upon his follies and wrong doing, while it awards woman but a crust for her toil, sets spies upon her footsteps, and pronounces her an outcast for stepping in her need over the prescribed line. It is high time that such an umpire shall "step down and out." Where much is required, let much be granted. If respectability in all things is required of woman, then in the name of all that is just and sacred grant her the means of maintaining that respectability. If favoritism is to be shown to sex, let it be to the weaker, never forgetting that it is the sex of our mothers and sisters, wives and daughters. Poverty is one of the great sources of crime. Let not then starvation wages be any longer a cause of female poverty, the stepping stone of female hoodlumism. As to the "eight hour law," sought by the Knights of Labor, I shall cheerfully give it my support when convinced that it will effect the greatest good to the greatest number." At present this is, in my mind, problematic. Prudence requires in this, as in all other cases of legislation, that the proposed measure, before its adoption, shall be duly considered and shown to the satisfaction of reason to be for the common good. Would this end be attained by the application of this measure? That the eight hour law urged to supersede the longer working day in most of the industries, would -the same amount of work being done as now give employment to a greater number of laborers, and would afford more leisure to those engaged, in which to "develop their intellectual, moral, and social faculties" are obvious facts. But that the industries of the United States would thrive, provided the pay was as much for eight hours' work as it is now for ten, twelve, and more hours, is not so obvious. I take it for granted that the eight hour law involves this condition, or even more exacting ones, as laborers complain that they can barely subsist on present wages. The history of the foundry and machine industry of San Francisco clearly shows, by the numerous failures of employers-men distinguished for their skill, prudence, economy, and integrity of purpose-that they were unable. to pay more wages. The many failures of legitimate mining operations in the State, show that the expenses, consisting largely in wages, exceeded the receipts from the mines. The farmers of California, in general, aver that they are making little or no money, that it is with difficulty they keep the wolf from the door." California with some degree of success competes with other wheat-growing countries in supplying the wants of foreign markets; but were the California farmer compelled to pay the same wages for eight hours' work that he now pays for twelve hours', it seems improbable that he could profitably export a pound of wheat. Three men would be required to do the work of two. Now if at present the cost per man be estimated at one dollar a day for wages and fifty cents for board and lodging, the cost for two men would be three dollars; whereas if the wages and finding per man be increased fifty per cent., the cost for three men a day would be five and one quarter dollars-that is seventy-five per cent. in excess of present cost for a given amount of work. Besides, the prices of farming utensils and other things becoming necessarily equally inflated, would still further burden the already overloaded farmer, would and increase the cost of production to not less than twice that of the present time. But at the same time he would be unable to get one cent a bushel more for his wheat in a foreign market. The world is his competitor, and is the umpire. What has thus been said of the wheat export from California under the eight hour law applies with equal force to most of the exports from the United States. Reference to national statistics shows that in 1880 the value of our exports was eight hundred and twenty-four million ($824,000,000) dollars. Now no inconsiderable portion of this amount was paid to American labor. Such being the facts, is it not manifest that the eight hour law, unless some corrective can be found, would impoverish labor by blocking the wheels of industry and progress? Labor can ill afford to enjoin idleness upon itself. Can it secure for itself and the country anything better than this inviting prize of eight hundred and twenty-four millions a year? Answer may be made if our imports, amounting to seven hundred and thirtyseven million dollars ($737,000,000) a year, and consisting largely of manufactures, should be supplanted by domestic manufactures, the field of labor would be enlarged, and the means of subsistence and comfort augmented, more than enough to offset the contraction resulting from the diminution of our exports. That this answer contains many grains of truth seems obvious. Especially so if the immigration of foreign labor into the country shall be debarred, as well as the importations of foreign fabrics. To exclude the importation of foreign fabrics only, and to increase. the standard of American wages, would be an urgent invitation for the immigration of foreign labor. The invitation would be accepted with alacrity. Indeed, foreign labor would require no contract prior to its crossing the Pacific or Atlantic. The prohibition of both foreign fabrics and foreign labor would greatly facilitate the effort being made to solve the great labor problem of America, by eliminating from it one of its most vexing elementsforeign competition. This element removed, not a few of the causes of difference between capital and labor would disappear with it. Thus the average wages paid labor in the same kinds of industry in the United States, are two and one-half times the wages paid in Europe. This immense difference in the condition of labor in the two countries places the American producer at great disadvantage in the competitive industries. Indeed low foreign wages, not the will of American employers of labor are the indexible arbiters that fix the cost of production and limit the standard of American wages. Now, were the "eight-hour law" to obtain, the price of American wages to be forced up by it to nearly five times the wages paid for equal work in Europe, and the cost of American production, as hitherto shown, thus doubled, it seems evident that the country would be flooded with foreign labor and foreign goods; and that, in consequence, our domestic industries would perish. These things being true, let legislation. first be applied to the correction suggested prohibition of foreign imports, and of the immigration of foreign labor; then, and not till then, may the "eight-hour law" sought, be enacted and enforced with justice and wisdom. Lay the axe to that root which strangles and absorbs our industries, before disturbing a fibre of the root that nourishes us, and gives prosperity and happiness to our country. The proposition to persuade employers to arbitrate all differences that may arise between them and their employés, in order that the bonds of sympathy between them may be strengthened, and that strikes may be rendered unnecessary, while holding out with one hand the calumet, points with the other to the sword. This seems fully confirmed by the occurrence of the numerous strikes ordered by the Knights of Labor. That in the land of freedom Labor is free to strike, is free of right to better its condition, is self-evident. The extent of the right of use of this sword, and the wisdom in practice of its frequent use, are very grave questions. Labor is man's estate, his sacred property, subject to his own control, whose fruits are rightfully his own to enjoy. But in its use, and in the enjoyment of its fruits, he must not deprive his fellow man of equal rights and equal privileges-must not deprive him of his right to labor and to enjoy the fruits thereof. "So use your own as not to injure another," is the golden rule of action. It comes down to us sanctioned by the wisdom and experience of ages. It must prevail, where civilization exists. Man can no more monopolize the "Rights of Man," than he can monopolize the theorems and corollaries of the exact sciences. "The individual finds in the rights of others the limits of his own, and their guarantee in the duties which are imposed on each one of his fellows." If one organization, independent of the State and general government, may pronounce and enforce its dictum as the law of labor and traffic, another independent organization with equal right may pronounce its dictum, hostile to dictum No. 1, as the law of labor and traffic; and so on indefinitely may independent organizations with equal right pronounce and enforce their dicta of labor and traffic, and all hostile among themselves. This is anarchy; this, prevailing, would strangle every industry in the land, disrupt society, trample upon civilization, and substitute black terror for the Goddess of Liberty. That we may not err in our course, let the eye wander not from this great truth as the polar star: "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Liberty, justice, manhood, hold in utter abhorrence the use of vile epithets, of the bludgeon, firearms, and fiendish dynamite, to deter honest, needy, but proscribed labor from earning its daily bread. This proscription by a self-constituted privileged class may take from honest labor not an iota of its inherent rights, guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. Violence cannot succeed. "By an eternal law," says Edmund Burke, "Providence has decreed vexation to violence, and poverty to rapine." Might for a while may triumph over right; but in a free government only such institutions as rest upon principles of freedom, equality, sound common sense, and approved experience, can long endure. John Stuart Mill says: "While a portion of the working classes continue to fix their hopes on hedging themselves in against competition, and protecting their own wages by shutting others out from access to their employment, nothing better can be expected from them than total absence of any large and generous aims. Success, even if attainable, in raising up a protected class of working people, would now be a hinderance instead of a help to the emancipation of the working classes at large." This view of Mr. Mill seems not difficult of verification. Thus, the United States statistics for 1880 show in round numbers as follows: This The difference in resulting products between the first and second conditions imposed, is seen to be $1,080,000,000. amount would be an actual loss to the country, loss in the supply of the necessaries and comforts of life. An additional wrong would be inflicted by reducing the number of laborers twenty per cent., as clearly shown by the populations respectively allowed participation, namely, 50,000,000 under the first condition, and 40,000,000 under the second. Were an equal capital employed, and the wages tripled, then would result Loss of wealth to the country. $1,674,000,000 34,500,000 15,500,000 These results show a still greater loss to the country, and a still greater wrong to the laboring masses. As the price of manufactures would increase in proportion to their scarcity, this diminution in their production would tend to cancel the advantages accruing to the privileged class by means of extra wages, and work a still farther hardship than hitherto shown to the non-privileged class, suffering for employment through no fault of their own,-but through that of caste. Thus by practical examples we see the soundness of Mill's views-see that this "hedging in " and " shutting out system would deplete the national wealth, diminish the necessaries and comforts of life, create caste, and pauperize millions. Would we be philanthropists-would we be just to our equals, just to our countrywould we "so exercise our own freedom, as not to infringe the rights of others, or the public peace and safety,"—we must devise and practice some plan of broader gauge. وو It may be urged that the difference of $1,000,000,000 between the investment of $4,400,000,000 and the resulting products. valued at $5,400,000,000, seems disproportionately large as profits accruing to capital on its venture; and that labor is justly entitled to share with capital in these gains. This view would have greater force were times assured to continue as favorable to manufacturing as those of 1880. Were capital not to avail itself of its accumulations in prosperous times, it must in hard times inevitably come to the ground. Reservoirs of capital are as necessary to the industries as reservoirs of water are to the various uses to which the water is put. The question, How shall these gains be employed? is far more important than the question, Who shall nominally possess them? They are now capital, not less so than was the original capital prior to its investments, of which they are the offspring; and evidently ought to be so used, as to secure, "the greatest good to the greatest number." Will it accomplish this end by being distributed among those already employed, or by being used to stimulate the creation of industry, and thereby furnish work for the unemployed, and raise their condition to the higher plane of advantages enjoyed by their hitherto more fortunate fellow workingmen ? Under like conditions, a sum equal to the original investment would yield a profit of $1,000,000,000: the employed would thrive on their old rate of wages increased by these gains, while the unemployed would still hunger and pine. But on the other hand, let this profit, or a portion of it, say $880,000,000, be invested together with a sum equal to the original, then twenty per cent more labor would be required, which would inure to the benefit of the unemployed. The amount of products would be increased twenty per cent--that is from a value of $5,400,000,000 to $6,480,000,000. This policy pursued would in no great length of time furnish profitable employment to every hand in the land able and willing to work. In consequence of this increased and increasing production, not only would plenty obtain, but the cost of food, shelter, and clothing would be greatly reduced, to the benefit of all. This is seen in the fact that the value of our manufactures in 1883-4, was $7,500,000,000. Again: what has been said of the hardship imposed on American employers of labor, by means of higher wages here than prevail in Europe, applies with even greater force to the hardship imposed on California employers of labor, by means of the higher wages here than prevail in the Atlantic States. In illustration of this: the report of the bureau of Labor Statistics of California for 1883-4 shows that in twenty-seven trades the average wages in San Francisco are thirty-nine and one-half per cent higher than those in New York and Chicago. Much of the raw material is more cheaply and easily procured on the Atlantic than on the Pacific side of the continent. Such are the facilities of transportation that the consuming markets of various competing products are fully as accessible to New York and Chicago as to San Francisco. Were wages uniform throughout the country, it is thus seen that California employers of labor would still operate at great disadvantage in competing with Eastern employers, owing to the greater cost of materials here than in the East. Since these things are so, could aught be more impolitic for California labor than by strikes or other means, to force up wages? Is it not evident from the facts, that by so doing it would crush out enterprise and our domestic industries? By so doing would not labor turn itself out of doors, or at least enjoin upon itself emigration to those places where it would be a suppliant for wages thirty-nine and one-half per cent. less than it is now receiving? "Strikes settle nothing," says an eloquent and able advocate of the cause of labor. If some strikes may have succeeded in enforc ing their demand, it is to be apprehended that in most cases their success will prove superficial and ephemeral. Competition, not strikes, is the great promoter of industry and progress. Enterprise, ever thoughtful and watchful, does not strike, but manfully enters the field of industry as a competitor for its proffered prize. Railroads, telegraphs, manufactories, proving profitable, call into existence competing railroads, telegraphs, and manufactories. Thus by competition the greatest abundance of the necessaries, comforts, and luxuries of life is obtained, profits reduced to a minimum on the article, but made good on the principle that "the nimble sixpence is better than the slow shilling." Strikes reverse this state of affairs, lock up capital, throttle enterprise, produce scarcity, send up prices, and impoverish the country. Indeed, the record of strikes is not flattering to their wisdom. Mr. Bevan reports 2352 strikes occurring in Great Britain between 1870 and 1879. The loss of wages alone from 114 of these strikes was $25,339,125. The loss to employers resulting from the remaining 2238 of them is not reported. Estimating it at the rate of that of the 114 cases reported it would amount to $522,000,000. Joseph W. Weeks reports 813 strikes in the United States in 1880. The loss of unearned wages of the employés resulting from 226 of these. strikes amounted to $3,711,097. Estimating the loss of the 813 strikes at the same rate, it amounts to $13,359,000. "The history of strikes," says Mr. Weeks, "abundantly proves that as a rule they are not successful that is, the demand which was the cause of the strike is not conceded. Of 351 of the strikes reported upon by Mr. Bevan in his paper already referred to, 189 were unsuccessful, 71 successful, and 91 compromised. Of 149 reported upon by the Massachusetts bureau of labor statistics, only 18 were successful, 109 unsuccessful, 16 compromised, and 6 partially successful. The : |